Let's not forget that the morning session is 2.5 hours long. No reason why Australia couldn't bat for 1.5-2 hours. Get a 150-200 run lead and give the quicks a burst before lunch and then keep the pressure up for the rest of the day. With Duminy out of the match SA will be heavily reliant on their top order.

Lyon was also hardly terrible bowling in the first innings. With a few foot marks to go with the bounce he was getting previously he could cause some trouble.

Indeed. Barring some truly inept bowling in the second innings it'd be pretty stupid to drop either when you consider that Steyn and Philander both struggled on the same pitch.

My concerns about how Hilfenhaus bowled in this Test go far deeper than the fact that he was ineffective though.

You'd be mad to drop a previously performing bowler for not taking many wickets on this deck against this batting lineup, but if he's actually sending down crap and reverting to worrying old habits then it's a completely different thing, especially if you have someone like Starc in reserve.

i mean, i'd totally support dropping hilf so you can all taste it, but **** starc might bowl a pile of **** in the shield match starting tomorrow

Yes I'm surprised there isn't more of a question mark over Starc with regards to Test cricket. He's undoubtedly a very effective bowler in limited overs cricket but his record in FC and Test cricket is pretty average so far.

Of the three quicks, I'd think Hilf the most vulnerable if they were going to make a change. Siddle generally bowls well on AO and a leftie coming in from the Torrens is always going to be handy in the arvo. But yeah, the batting still seems sacrosanct as usual.

Originally Posted by Garson007

Far too many no-balls from Philander. I fear he might be coming down from the top, mentally.

Well, in his defence, there's only one way to go from an average of 15 unless you're a genius. And he's not a genius.

Those odds of 50-1 and 60-1 yesterday were utterly absurd. Even if Australia had been bowled out yesterday they'd still have a legitimate shot at winning unless South Africa completely batted them out of the match and to accomplish that takes just as much time at the crease as today will. Even in the scenarios when South Africa bat well after getting a first innings lead they would generally declare leaving a target that Australia would be better than 50-1 to chase, albeit still a long shot obviously. So in essence the odds shouldn't have come in that much - they were just bollocks to begin with.

Anyway don't piss about Oz, I want some Saffie wickets before I go to bed.